Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda of Evolution

I have written numerous times about ID and have gotten used to being blasted by evolutionists.  I am still on an honest quest to understand the arguments of both sides better.  I have been reading a number of blogs that are pro evolution and staunchly anti-ID.  I also finished Francis Collins "The Language of God" in an effort to understand things from a scientist who believes in God but is staunchly pro-evolution. and anti-ID.  I realize that his book might not be the top recommendation of some my evolutionists friends but it was on a fire sale table at Borders and became my book choice.  :-)

Here are a few observations I have formed from my recent reading and thinking.

1.  I seem to detect a growing furor and downright hatred of all things ID among evolutionists.  I might be reading the wrong blogs but man, the hatred and vitriol is intense.  Attacks on ID scientist's integrity, faith, intelligence, motives seems to be rampant.  There is some response to this as well on the ID side.  They are getting pretty testy as well it seems.  For something that apparently is so obviously "stupid" it seems to me the evolutionists are scared, threatened, incensed or whatever.  I may be wrong but it sure feels that way.  Evolutionist's blog posts are mostly screeds.

2. I was not impressed with Collin's book.  His arguments for religious belief and evolution did not satisfy me at all.  He (and most other evolutionists) use bad logic in my opinion.  If something can somehow be described (not proven in a lab mind you) that "could" have happened by natural, evolutionary means, it proves that it DID happen by natural means. Over and over, he describes how evolution could have created and assembled something "irreducibly complex" and then adds that this has never been been proven in a lab.  Then the huge jump is made to say it DID happen that way.  And thus, according to him, intelligent design is proved wrong. 

I read and re-read what he wrote and I shook my head and said "this is really stupid!"  There HAVE to be stronger arguments than what he makes!  I was incredulous as he repeated this nonsense over and over.  I was actually angry.  I wanted something that forced me to say "hmmmm, that is a really good argument."  But not once did I think this. His illogic seemed so evident and his admissions as to the lack of actual "proof" left me dumbfounded. Maybe I am just dumb. There, I said it for you!

3.  Continually there is the attack that ID scientists are creationists, fundamentalists in disguise.  Francis Collins' first argument against ID was that it was founded by a Christian Law Professor of Cal Berkeley, Phillip Johnson. I found that argument silly and certainly not scientific.  Many ID'ers are believers, but not all are.  If there is bias in ID, there is also bias with Darwinists who are mostly atheists/agnostics?  Doesn't bias work both ways?

To me there is no flavor of the "creationism" in any of the ID stuff I read. I have read young earth creationism and I just don't see the connection.  35 years ago, I came to doubt macro evolution when I was not a believer. I don't believe ID in order to support my faith.  I am not a fundamentalist.  ID is not "appealing" to me because of my faith.  I just cannot help myself when I see really cool design in all of life.  Randomness does not do it for me.  The more I know of how intricate the world is, the more I see design.  It feels "natural" to me.  It could not be any other way even though I do believe in micro evolution.   I sure could be wrong but I have not seen or read much that convinces me otherwise.

4.  I am attracted to design because of the logic and my sense of "likelihood."  The intricate complexity we all observe seems so incredibly unlikely to have just been a lucky stroke. A long series of extremely lucky strokes!  I realize that statement is not particularly scientific, but it describes what I think and feel. 

I can see how a random mutation can change something.  Both sides admit that more often than not, that change is negative.  I also know that DNA's replication system is extremely faithful. Random mutations happen but they are pretty rare especially in a small population.  I then reason that all of these random mutations happened relatively simultaneously and somehow an intricate flagellum comes from nowhere.  Collins confidently explains how scientists have now found parts similar to the parts of a flagellum which "could" have been the parts that natural selection used to build a flagellum.   Since it could have, it did! ID is wrong because design can be explained by evolution (without any proof whatsoever).  Evolution blindly created this amazing protein machinery, even though it appears highly designed.  Scientists have debunked that foolishness by explaining how it could have happened.  Isn't that compelling?  Ignore the man behind the curtain.

There are many arguments/explanations how macro evolution "could" have happened via micro evolution.  Then I consider the massive numbers of mutations which had to happen to build the machinery of the eye, ear, nose, mouth, tongue, arms, legs, liver, heart, lungs, kidney, testicles, ovaries etc. etc.  All of these things had to be luckily happening at nearly the same time, with all the useful mutations being selected and kept. And other random creations had to happen in the vegetation and animal kingdom to provide something to eat.  All these lucky breaks happening simultaneously.  It seems so implausible to me.  Nope, I cannot absolutely prove there was a designer but it seems more likely than not.  I know of nothing that appears designed that was not designed.  I know of nothing that appears designed that happened randomly.  "Could have happened like this, therefore it did" is very weak and implausible.

5. Collins argues at length how "junk DNA" proves there is no designer.  But he claims there is a God who did some unknown things to get it all started, but then mostly disappeared but will respond to prayer!
He is a geneticist who was in charge of the human genome project.  Impressive.  But his book is old even with a 2006 copyright.  As I post here, it is now known that most of the human genome is NOT junk.  Function is now being found for most, if not all of DNA.  A whole section of Collins' arguments have to be discarded. 

He also argues that ID cannot predict anything therefore is not science.  ID scientists claim they did predict junk DNA would be found to be useful.  This claim is disputed vigorously.  But even if ID scientists did not actually predict it, ID would logically predict a designer would likely not produce something that is over 95% junk.  The fact this argument is still regularly used to discredit ID, the new discovery should be evidence that ID may well be a scientific idea worthy of consideration.

6.  Even if there are so called "flawed" (stupid) designs of a designer, seems everyone is ready to admit that the human body is pretty damn good.  Shoot, look in Playboy and tell me you don't see something there that is pretty good, albeit with some intelligent plastic help.  How did we end up so well put together?  Anything I am aware of that is random is not very well put together.  It appears, well, random! In fact, random puts nothing together in our day to day experience.  Random design is an oxymoron.

It would seem we would find in the fossil record, near humans with one eye, both sex organs, an arm, an arm without hands or fingers etc.  None of those are in the fossil record according to Collins.  How come they are absent?  I know it is hard for fossils to occur but it would seem some really weird stuff would be there.

7. I want to be clear that I am distinguishing between macro evolution and micro evolution.  The latter I believe.  The former I currently don't.  It seems to me there is a huge leap of faith in most of what I read. What is obviously true about micro evolution somehow absolutely proves macro evolution simply because it "could."  Collin's and others readily admit, macro evolution proof is not there.  However, it is always assumed because micro is true, macro is also true.  Since it COULD, it DID. This because "science" only accepts natural explanations by definition.  Because complexity is what we have, and because micro evolution is true, complexity came from evolutionary means because in COULD.  That is unsatisfying logic.

8.  I am fascinated by Darwin's, and todays evolutionists failure to explain where the first stuff came from. The question of origins.  Where did DNA first come from?  How did non living become living?  Conscious?  Thinking? Where did the "stuff" first come from for random mutation and natural selection to act upon?  A massive, unexplainable gap.  No evolutionist will go there it seems.  And yet this has to be the major question.  Even geniuses like Hawkins are awed by what the Big Bang ended up producing. Us!! DNA is so inexplicable, evolutionists run home to RNA because it is less complex. If we can explain how RNA "could" have happened then science has proven how DNA DID arise.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda!

9.  It seems to me we are dealing with an issue that is as much about philosophy, religion, bias, conspiracy theory as actual science.  On both sides.  The only difference; evolutionists have the advantage of proven micro evolution.  That is real science.  Even ID readily agrees with that.  Even Phillip Johnson agreed with that!  I don't think anyone is arguing about that, though ID is often accused of being so stupid they don't even understand this.  Common descent may well be an exception to this with some IDers.  Not Behe though.

I think there are real, honest and scientific questions about the proven mechanisms of evolution being able to produce the amazing appearance of design.  I think Behe raises very serious and well argued points in both of his books. Evolutionists create straw men, then angrily and happily destroy them.  Then all pat each other on the back, congratulating each other on how friggin smart they are and how friggin stupid Behe and his ignorant cohorts are.  As an observer, I note the logic of Behe, and the vitriol of his opponents.  I note the lack of truly addressing his logic.  When it is addressed, it is with coulda's.  Other really great arguments are made like, "Oh yea, name one place where ID science is being done in a lab?"  What a convincing argument!  My dad can beat up your dad!

10.  I think Collins needs better reasons to believe in God.  Seems his staunch adherence to all things evolutionist leaves little room for real belief in God.  His reasons sure would not convince me and I doubt he has convinced many other scientists.  I suspect there is a lot more to his belief since he is a big fan of C.S. Lewis.  I think he just did not want to go further out on the limb lest he be subject to even more ridicule than he and others of his ilk get from people like Dawkins etc.

I am glad I got to 10 so this post could be more symmetric and appear designed.

Comments

[Grodge]

Pat,
I give you credit for your persistence.

Let me make a couple observations.

You believe in evolution.

You admit that the argument is philosophical. (It seems to me we are dealing with an issue that is as much about philosophy, religion, bias, conspiracy theory as actual science. On both sides. )

I'm not sure what part of evolution is "religious", unless our definitions of "evolution" are different. Mutation, natural selection, genetics, cell biology... where's the philosophy and religion?

What is your beef? Do you think ID should be taught in science class on equal footing with evolution? Is that the basis of your argument? Or do you know of some school that is going beyond evolution and teaching some anti-theist philosophy in science class? You can have your God; please accept that, for some people, He's not necessary for evolution to occur.

You will never get people like me to agree that the only explanation is that some Designer is necessary. According to my surmise, Behe's conclusions are just not scientifically sound. He claims that some organ systems are "irreducibly complex" and the evidence just plain does not show it.

Likewise, materialists will never get folks like you to understand how natural selection can explain speciation. Fine.

Is there vitriol on both sides? You bet. I'll make a deal: If your side promises to stop trying to inject their philosophy into public school biology class, then I'll promise to stop commenting on the topic-- a cease-fire-- and I would be the first to defend you right to believe anything you want.

What would it take to accept a cease-fire on your part?

[Pat Sullivan]

Grodge,

Obviously, neither of us have control over our sides. Nice thought though.

You misread what I said. It is “as much” philosophy as science." I did not say it was purely philosophical. Far from it. That is the problem for materialists. As much as they would love to be able to simply dismiss Behe and his lot, they can’t. The evidence and appearance of intricate, complex design is just too obvious and just too compelling for many (likely the majority). The effort to simply dismiss intelligence arising from non-intelligence, life from non-life is not an easy task. It ain’t going away.

How is religion involved in evolution? In the actual science of micro evolution, there is no religion. The lack of real evidence from micro to macro is where religious type of “leaps of faith” show up in my opinion. Also, I think the dogmatic type statements typically made by evolutionists are very similar to fundamentalism as I have noted before.

Your own statement "you will never get people like me to agree..." feel pretty absolute and closed minded. Similar to my fundy friends. Seems, no amount of science, logic, evidence could ever change your or their minds. I read Collins' book looking for something convincing. I read and reread sections hoping to find something that would make me go "hmmmm." I was angry when there was nothing. Perhaps you have read Behe’s books the same way.

What is my beef? Good question. The hateful screeds bother me. The refusal to give honest credence to what seem to me to be very strong questions that evolutionists only answer with "it could have happened this way, thus did."

Do I want ID taught in biology class on the same level as micro evolution? No. Would it be appropriate to teach kids that there is actually a minority of legitimate, credentialed scientists who have strong arguments that challenge macro evolution? Or point out the weaknesses/failures of Darwinism to explain "origins"? Sure! Are we not supposed to teach them to think? Are they unable to consider competing/conflicting ideas, information and criticisms? They are going to do it anyway so why not talk about it in schools? It is clearly a hot topic of debate. Evolutionists sure give it a lot of play. Should our kids not be informed as to what and why?

Should kids be taught the majority and minority views of scientists who believe global warming and those who don’t? Should they be taught the pros and cons of sex before marriage? Sure. For the most part, I was taught to think, not what to think. Seems materialists only want the latter. Or do you agree with the efforts in the EU to criminalize and censor anyone who dare question evolutionary dogma? I would hope not.

I would never ask you to stop commenting on this issue, here or elsewhere. You might do so here but you wouldn’t elsewhere nor should you. I believe in healthy debate and have long believed that honest men can disagree. The emotion involved causes both sides to get pretty irrational, hateful and dogmatic.

I try not to present my observations dogmatically. Why you almost always see, “it seems”, “I think”, “in my opinion”. I am not qualified as a scientist. But I am a fairly informed observer and offer my observations as such. What would it take to get me to accept a cease fire? I am not at war. I am just trying to present my observations and thinking. If some are convinced, so be it. If not, ok too.

As always, I appreciate your comments.

[Grodge]

I'm all for open-minded discussions, but my point is that some proclaim that God created the universe in several days, and then there is a whole spectrum of belief as to whether and how the universe is designed, Behe's included, but they are all variations of the theme.

Another side proposes that perhaps a simpler explanation is that the stuff of life evolved in a certain way. Darwin never said that he "discovered" how life came about, he only surmised how species evolved. As you have agreed, the science since 1859 has all corroborated the theories of Darwin: genetics, cell biology, molecular chemistry have not refuted the basic premise that Darwin envisioned.

I'm still unsure what your problem is with teaching all this in science class. You assume that students are not being taught the limits of what we know scientifically, and I disagree... but then I can only speak from my own experience, which was a Roman Catholic private education through high school. When I entered the public University of Illinois, I was ever vigilant as to what was being taught and I can honestly say that I remember no injection of any atheist philosophy in my science curriculum through a Master's degree. Likewise with medical school, which was private but still had no bias as to theistic belief.

You seem bent on various bloggers and authors who expound on their anti-design "hateful screeds", but I see no problem with this. They are allowed their philosophical and religious opinions as well. Now, if they are including this in a public school curriculum I would have a problem with that, as would many agnostics and atheists I'm sure, but I have no evidence that this is happening. They can screech all they want on the computer and in their books.

You state: For the most part, I was taught to think, not what to think. Seems materialists only want the latter. That is a broad generalization-- ALL materialists? -- that is unwarranted and detracts from your overall arguments because it immediately turns off more open-minded materialists.

I would think most working scientists would see Behe as either another opportunist seeking an audience, or a misguided researcher who has the science wrong, and most working scientists do not give it a second thought. Other scientists, perhaps Dawkins and others, are equally opportunistic and screech form the other side, sell a lot of books and become celebrities. A third group, like Laurence Krauss, come out to protect science in the classroom, which is the real fight. I think the populace has become enraptured with Behe for all the wrong reasons. I think they do not understand the errors of his theories and are merely enamored with any scientist who has the balls to spit in the eye of the godless scientific establishment. In some ways, Dawkins' unsympathetic arrogance feeds the fire of discontent over the science establishment. Most working scientists only give the discussion passing attention-- until they find out their kids' science classes are being required to teach bad science. Enter Larry Krauss.

Philosophically, I happen to see Design as infinitely more complicated than a materialist view of creation, and I know you disagree with that view. The bottom line, as I have said before, is to determine what is taught in science class in public schools. I do not remember the "beginning of life" ever being theorized in my science class or by Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel or even Francis Crick in a scientific paper.

You quote me in a fragment as saying: You will never get people like me to agree... and maybe I'm being a little sensitive, but I think this is a mischaracterization of what I said.

I actually said: "You will never get people like me to agree that the only explanation is that some Designer is necessary. Are you trying to convince me that the "only explanation" is that a Designer is necessary? If so, you need more evidence to show me. I may agree that a Designer is possible but so far, there is no evidence of His necessity. Would it assuage your polite sensibilities if I had included the clause "with the current evidence"? Okay, I plead guilty in not being polite, but I thought that was implied.

I've read Behe's first book, and it doesn't do it for me. I have not read every single word of his second book, but the arguments seem obtuse, and his first book had so many errors of reasoning that I honestly don't think I could trudge through another of his books. You may see this as not being "open-minded", but I don't think I'm required to read every single senseless theory in detail. What else you got? Any other theories?

Should Behe's theory be taught in schools as an alternative scientific explanation? The argument is that Behe is presenting sloppy science, and the scientific community is making that determination. If we are going that route, then why not present all errant theories and present why they are in error? We could, but that would leave little time in the school day to teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Let's leave that to upper college level biology and philosophy classes.

My question about a cease-fire is rhetorical. You state that "I'm not at war." Well, neither am I, but I do think it's constructive to pursue what the point of the argument is. I infer that you want Behe taught in schools, and while I understand that argument, I can give you reasons why this would not be a good idea. Is that where this discussion is going?

Just because Dawkins and others are perceived as shrill in their condemnation of Behe's math and science does not mean that Behe is correct. Behe may still be wrong in his explanations, and in my reading, he is. It's important to separate the scientific criticisms from the more flamboyant critics.

[david]

Have you seen this interesting article--doesn't prove anything necessarily but worth further looking into:

Dust ‘comes alive’ in space
Robert Booth

SCIENTISTS have discovered that inorganic material can take on the characteristics of living organisms in space, a development that could transform views of alien life.

An international panel from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Max Planck institute in Germany and the University of Sydney found that galactic dust could form spontaneously into helixes and double helixes and that the inorganic creations had memory and the power to reproduce themselves.

A similar rethinking of prospective alien life is being undertaken by the National Research Council, an advisory body to the US government. It says Nasa should start a search for what it describes as “weird life” - organisms that lack DNA or other molecules found in life on Earth.

The new research, to be published this week in the New Journal of Physics, found nonorganic dust, when held in the form of plasma in zero gravity, formed the helical structures found in DNA. The particles are held together by electromagnetic forces that the scientists say could contain a code comparable to the genetic information held in organic matter. It appeared that this code could be transferred to the next generation.

Professor Greg Morfill, of the Max Planck institute of extra-terrestrial physics, said: “Going by our current narrow definitions of what life is, it qualifies.

“The question now is to see if it can evolve to become intelligent. It’s a little bit like science fiction at the moment. The potential level of complexity we are looking at is of an amoeba or a plant.

“I do not believe that the systems we are talking about are life as we know it. We need to define the criteria for what we think of as life much more clearly.”

It may be that science is starting to study territory already explored by science fiction. The television series The X-Files, for example, has featured life in the form of a silicon-based parasitic spore.

The Max Planck experiments were conducted in zero gravity conditions in Germany and on the International Space Station 200 miles above earth.

The findings have provoked speculation that the helix could be a common structure that underpins all life, organic and nonorganic.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2241753.ece

[Pat Sullivan]

Grodge,

I think you are right that the extremism of people like Dawkins color the whole argument in a very negative way. To attack everyone who believes in God does not do your side any good at all.

I actually did not take my observations anywhere near what gets taught in school. I understand that is your main concern. I just like to read and write about things I am interested in. I find ID and evolution interesting. Have since I was a kid. I think I read Darwin as a frosh. Like you, also in Roman Catholic HS.

I went to Eastern Illinois (just south of you). It was there that I took an anatomy class that caused me to deeply question whether Darwin could explain the things I learned about the human body. I get finch beaks, but the amazing machinery of all the various systems of mammals to me is quite a stretch. I understand how evolutionists say it "could" have happened but I feel they go too far when they say it did happen, usually with great certainty and disdain for anyone disagreeing with them.

I don't start with the "necessity" for a designer. To me, intricate biological engineering simply indicates there likely is an engineer. Evolutionists start with the "necessity" of a natural explanation. If they can imagine one, that imagining becomes certain truth. Over and over this was Collin's logic.

I did not mean to imply "all materialists" want to control what students think. I said it "seems" that way. I should have been more clear. I do get concerned when some on your side actually agree with what some are trying to do in the EU. I also note that you did not answer my question. You agree with the efforts in the EU? Think we should criminalize creationism and ID?

I totally agree that the bloggers are entitled to their screeds. I am entitled to my observation that their screeds don't do much for them. I, and others, read the logic of Behe etc. and compare it to the screeds. Behe wins.

Many scientists claim the blatant errors of Behe's science. I have read what many of them have said. So far, not one has made an argument that made sense to me. At best, it is coulda, woulda, shoulda. I am trying to understand! As I have said repeatedly, I want to go "hmmmm." Am I too dull or are their arguments just not very convincing? I know how the screeds answer.

[Grodge]

I'm going to apologize right at the outset for my bluntness.

Pat says: I think you are right that the extremism of people like Dawkins color the whole argument in a very negative way. To attack everyone who believes in God does not do your side any good at all.

My response: I never commented on the Dawkins coloring anything in a negative way, or a positive way for that matter. I have no opinion of the “color” of Dawkins arguments. What I said was, Just because Dawkins and others are perceived as shrill in their condemnation of Behe's math and science does not mean that Behe is correct. Behe may still be wrong in his explanations, and in my reading, he is. It's important to separate the scientific criticisms from the more flamboyant critics. Dawkins is entitled to his opinion and he is allowed to express it in whichever color he chooses. I do not agree or disagree with his opinions about atheism. My agreement with Dawkins entails his interpretation of the science of evolution and the invalidity of ID as a science. Period. Whether he attacks theists or not has no bearing on his scientific argument. Do you think you might be projecting your negative ideas about Dawkins onto me?

Pat says: I actually did not take my observations anywhere near what gets taught in school. I understand that is your main concern. I just like to read and write about things I am interested in. I find ID and evolution interesting. Have since I was a kid. I think I read Darwin as a frosh. Like you, also in Roman Catholic HS.

My response: You keep saying that you are “interested” in evolution and that you even understand the concepts of mutation, selection and descent. Yet you never actually get around to discussing the science of evolution, only the extraneous noise of the “debate” between ID and evolution, the gotchas of legal arguments or whether homo habilus and homo erectus having co-existed contemporaneously changes the validity of evolution, or whether Dawkins has a bad attitude, or whether ID “scientists” are persecuted, etc, etc. The same goes for your friend Denyse.

I agree that ID is sort of an interesting concept, it's just not a science. I also think the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ( http://www.venganza.org/ ) is interesting, but I wouldn't include it my kid's science class. If you are interested in the science of evolution, then discuss the molecular and cellular mechanics and the paleontology of evolution. It really is beautiful how everything discovered in several major scientific fields has corroborated the theories of Darwin and Wallace from 150 years ago. Nothing so far as refuted this basic premise. Not often does such a unifying theory come along, and it has been developing right before our eyes-- astounding! And yet all we can seem to talk about is the possible validity of a sky wizard arranging our genes. Does Darwinism explain everything? Hardly. It says nothing of the origin of the universe, the origin of the earth or the origin of life. Darwin's tree of life began with a one-celled organism. But Darwinism does explain the gradual development of complex species. Does that mean evolution really happened or is it coulda woulda shoulda? Well, I suppose a Superior Being or a Space Alien might have put that one-celled organism on earth, or perhaps all the fossils were put here for entertainment, or God changes a few genes at crucial times, etc, but most of that seems less plausible (to me) than the scientific explanations based on the observed evidence.

What's taught in schools is important because that is the crucible of our scientific legacy passed on to the next generation. A HS student has a few hundred hours to learn all of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics, in addition to language, social studies and the other soft sciences, and if we waste precious science class time studying non-science, then we cripple the next generation of our society, not to mention teaching our kids that any old wild-eyed fantasy can be called science.

Pat says: I went to Eastern Illinois (just south of you). It was there that I took an anatomy class that caused me to deeply question whether Darwin could explain the things I learned about the human body. I get finch beaks, but the amazing machinery of all the various systems of mammals to me is quite a stretch. I understand how evolutionists say it "could" have happened but I feel they go too far when they say it did happen, usually with great certainty and disdain for anyone disagreeing with them.

My response: A lot of scientists and observers have thought the same thing and have spent blood and treasure throughout the ages trying to poke holes in Darwin's theory. I would argue that it is the most scrutinized scientific theory and body of evidence in history. Hypotheses are tested and tested and tested again. No law says you have to agree that evolution answers all questions of our existence; in fact, many evolutionary scientists debate all the time about the origins of man and the reasons for our existence, etc, etc. The difference is that they do not call those discussions “science”, they call them “religion” or “philosophy.” I'm sure opera singers might sing Johnny Cash songs on their night off, they just don't call it opera. When I hear Dawkins saying that Darwinism “proves scientifically” that God does not exist, then I'll call him out in it, too. You may see the same data I see and come to a completely different conclusion. As far as the disdain, I cannot make a comment. I see just as much disdain on both sides, but that doesn't change the science.

Pat says: I don't start with the "necessity" for a designer. To me, intricate biological engineering simply indicates there likely is an engineer. Evolutionists start with the "necessity" of a natural explanation. If they can imagine one, that imagining becomes certain truth. Over and over this was Collin's logic.

My response: I never said you “started” with the necessity for a designer, I cannot conjecture how you got there. I do know that you currently seem to hold the opinion that a designer is necessary, as does your friend Denyse. I'm asking what that opinion is based on. You claim that evolutionists “start” with the necessity of a natural explanation. I know for a fact that that is a broad generalization that is unwarranted and false in at least a few circumstances. I would argue that the vast majority of evolutionists and western scientists, Darwin included, “started” from a theistic basis of belief and grew over much time and observation and study to trust that a natural explanation existed for all natural phenomena they encountered. ID tries to find exceptions, but as yet I know of no success at finding concrete exceptions. That doesn't mean they don't exist, it may mean that they have not been found yet. I'm patient, I'll wait for the Road to Damascus moment

Pat says: I did not mean to imply "all materialists" want to control what students think. I said it "seems" that way. I should have been more clear. I do get concerned when some on your side actually agree with what some are trying to do in the EU. I also note that you did not answer my question. You agree with the efforts in the EU? Think we should criminalize creationism and ID?

My response: What the “EU is doing” in regard to jailing creationists and holocaust deniers has nothing to do with science. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll refrain from inflicting my uneducated legal opinion on you. It does seem weird to me, but even if the EU courts are completely wrong, that still would not give one bit more credence to ID over evolution from a scientific standpoint.

Pat says: I totally agree that the bloggers are entitled to their screeds. I am entitled to my observation that their screeds don't do much for them. I, and others, read the logic of Behe etc. and compare it to the screeds. Behe wins.

Many scientists claim the blatant errors of Behe's science. I have read what many of them have said. So far, not one has made an argument that made sense to me. At best, it is coulda, woulda, shoulda. I am trying to understand! As I have said repeatedly, I want to go "hmmmm." Am I too dull or are their arguments just not very convincing? I know how the screeds answer.

My response: The most polite review of Behe's book I found was in Discover Magazine: http://tinyurl.com/2acpmf I think it's great that a guy like Behe can write books, get them published and have so many legitimate colleagues review and comment on his work. I wish I could be that fortunate. Behe's science and math are just plain wrong, and if it weren't for the fear of extrapolation of evolution to a materialist origin of life and the mass emotional response to the perceived negation of God by science, deniers like Behe would never get the attention they get, and certainly not the publisher. Behe is popular for a reason, and it has nothing to do with the validity of his scientific thought, but that's my opinion. Maybe that is what triggers disdain from some scientists? Could it be celebrity envy? Behe would do well to ride this wave as long as it will carry him-- I wish I had thought of it!

A theory is an opinion supported by facts: a testable hypothesis supported by evidence. If Intelligent Design is a Theory, then what is the hypothesis and how is it to be tested? You don't have to prove it, as you have implied in previous posts, you just have to test it to make it science. I would argue that ID is merely a refutation of an existing theory (evolution) and, unfortunately, it makes no valid factual claims. Furthermore, Michael Behe, the “Father of ID Science” has not done a good job of refuting the things he has set out to refute. If that's the best you got, to be polite, you're sunk. But then, that's just my opinion, and the opinion of every science journal, refereed or otherwise, that has printed a review of Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution. Do you really think the conspiracy is that widespread? In my experience of professors and scientists, they tend to be very independent and skeptical of each other. I could not see so many of them having the wherewithal to pull off such an elaborate ruse just to “get” Michael Behe.

ID could be a science: ID could come up with a hypothesis, say, “a superior being designs our spleens”, and then come up with a protocol to prove or disprove it, say, let's pray and ask the designer to create another lobe of the spleen in our offspring. If the next generation of humans does indeed have ultrasound or CT evidence of a bi-lobed spleen, then you may get some proponents to your theory. Hypothesis, test, observe, result. If the next generation still has a single lobed spleen, that does not “disprove” ID, it may mean the study was flawed somehow (wrong prayer, wrong animal sacrifice, etc.) I know this sounds facetious, but ID lacks a testable theory and that is why scientists will never include it as a science. Come up with your own hypothesis and then develop a test, I'm sure you'd be better at it than I am. I know I may sound like a smart ass, but I honestly cannot think of a testable hypothesis for this ersatz science called ID. We can discuss this all day long, but it's merely philosophizing and pontificating.

In conclusion, every religion but one has a creation myth. Horus, Attis, Adam and Eve, Krishna, the Great Pumpkin... only the Buddhists eschew the necessity of making up such a myth. Buddha simply said: "Conjecture about [the origin of] the world is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." http://tinyurl.com/yq4jx4

Well said. In fact, it's so well said that I'll sign off with that comment. It's your blog, you can have the last word.

[Pat Sullivan]

Grodge,

Yikes! We always end up here don't we. So much for a nice discussion.

I would just like you to answer my question. Do you want to criminalize and censor anyone from saying anything against evolutionary theory, in school or anywhere? I did not, nor am I, asking for your legal opinion. I am just asking you what YOU think? Don't know? No opinion? Don't want to say?

See ya!

[Grodge]

OK, I'll take the bait and reluctantly swim into the abyss of things I know nothing about: No, I do not think criminalization of thought or expression is appropriate.

Having said that, the case in point has something to do with a holocaust denier comparing abortion to the Jewish holocaust, which is apparently illegal in Germany under the Volksverhetzung (incitement) statute.

Separately, the Council of Europe has issued a memorandum that ID should not be taught in public schools as a science, which seems to just formalize with legislation what our US courts have decided in a piecemeal fashion.

I don't know the exact facts of the case against this minister, the only original links I could find were in German. And, as I said before, I'm not in a position to make a legal judgment.

Germany is different than the US, in case you haven't noticed. Our attempted genocide (of Native Americans) happened in the more remote past, but we also have a history of being exceedingly jittery with regards to protecting Native Americans' rights as a sovereign people, and such consideration has given us all manner of unintended consequences like the mafia running Indian casinos in New Buffalo, Michigan. Go figure.

This is traveling far afield from the original discussion of ID and evolution. The points above have nothing to do with the validity of ID as a science. I found a great link (since you couldn't slog through Miller's Finding Darwin's God) countering Behe's "Black Box" ideas in the necessary detail.

http://tinyurl.com/3dzbva

I'm sure folks will be presenting similarly detailed critiques of Edge of Evolution in the coming months, even if it does not deserve the attention.

[Pat Sullivan]

Grodge,

You can't give a simple answer to a simple question. And you can't do so without insult. I thought better of you. You are a great example of my 24 points here.

I wasn't baiting you. I asked you a straightforward question which in typical fashion you obfuscate and twist into something far fetched. "Sure I am for free speech, but you have to consider the American Indians and the Mafia." (my paraphrase) Right...!

I refer you to my post here. I assumed you knew to what I was referring. The document I refer to is here and NOT in German. Comparing abortion to the holocaust is denying the holocaust? Typical twisted logic of evolutionists who want to ban free speech.

"Germany is different than the US, in case you haven't noticed." Well duh, you friggin jerk!

Mafia running casinos? Can you possibly get more convoluted?

"This is traveling far afield". You think??

"since you couldn't slog through Miller's Finding Darwin's God"
You asshole! Miller highly touts Collin's book.

You're not worth the time. Never again will I reply to your bullshit. You are no better than the rest. Shame on me for thinking you were different. I wish I had the wasted time back!

[victoria]

Collins knows that if he doesn't hold the line he'll lose his career.